
EV5J 
MS' 



SPEECH 



OF THE 



HON. B. F. \yADE, OF OHIO, 



iAfJ' 



ON THE 

JN^EBRASKA AIS^D KANSAS BILLS. 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 3, 1854. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill to organize the Ter- 
ritories of Nebraska and Kansas — 

Mr. WADE said : Mr. President, having once addressed the Senate 
upon this subject, I should not have thought it my duty again to tres- 
pass upon your time, were it not that the arguments which have been 
urged in defence of this measure seem to me not less extraordinary and 
alarming than the measure itself. I regard the question to be one of 
the gravest importance, and so also it is considered by my constituents. 
Here is a territory larger than all the free States together, situated in 
the very heart of the Continent, Avith a rich and fertile soil and salu- 
brious climate, and consequently capable of sustaining many millions of 
inliabitants. More than thirty years ago, it was, for a satisfactory con- 
sideration, and by a solemn compact with the slaveholding States, for- 
ever fenced out from the encroachments of Slavery, and dedicated to 
Freedom. The question now is. Shall this law be repealed, and the 
whole of this fair region opened to the inroads of Slavery '? On such a 
question, Mr. President, my constituents will expect me to urge every 
argument that occurs, and make use of every legitimate means to defeat 
the measure. It has been thought that we urged our objections with 
too much zeal ; and we have been called factionists, and other hard 
names. And yet, sir, it is a fact that those who oppose this bill upon 
this floor, though in so lean a minority, still represent a majority of the 
people of the United States. This shows in a very strong light the 
anti-democratic principle on which this body is organized. But the 
fact that we represent a majority of tiie people should, I think, repel 
the charge of faction at least, and also justify us in the consumption of 
a considerable portion of the time of the Senate. 

Mr. DIXON. Is it not a mistake that the opponents of this bill rep- 
resent a majority of the people of the United States ? 

Mr. WADE. No, sir ; I think it is not a mistake. 

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. A majority of the people of the United 
States 1 



E4i> 



■3 



2 



\^\^ 



Mr. WADE. Yes, sir ; I think you will find it so. 

Mr. JONES. How do you make the calculation 1 

Mr. WADE. I am guided entirely by the census. 

Mr. JONES. I suppose the Senator counts Ohio, New York, and 
Massachusetts ; but what other States ? 

Mr. WADE. I count every State represented in whole by opponents 
of this bill ; and where the State is divided. I count one-half the popu- 
lation. That is the way I come at it. It does not require much mathe- 
matical knowledge to work it out. [Laughter.] This consideration is 
not very important, but it should, at all events, repel the charge olfac- 
tion, and it certainly justifies us in urging with great zeal our opposi- 
tion to this measure. 

I have said, Mr. President, that the question under consideration 
"W'as important. I doubt much whether, in the history of the world, 
there has ever been an occasion where the same number of men as com- 
pose this Senate had it in their power to confer a more enduring benefit 
or inflict a more lasting injury on mankind than now devolves on us. 
Untold millions, to the remotest time, shall arise, as generation after 
generation shall pass away, and bless our memories for the inestimable 
boon of liberty ; or, born to ignorance, degradation, and slavery, they 
shall curse and scoff at our names, who had the power to bless, but 
chose to curse. Such considerations oppress the mind with a painful 
sense of responsibility. 

The power of the Roman Senate, in the height of her glory, was not 
80 great as this. She could dispose of conquered nations, but had not 
the shaping and moulding of the institutions of a nation in its infancy — 
such a duty belongs to America alone. The political relation that the 
people of these Territories are to sustain to us, as members of this 
great Republic, invests the subject with additional importance. 

But, Mr. President, the advocates of this bill, in order to sustain it 
upon principle, have rightly judged that the Declaration of Independence 
must also be superseded and rendered inoperative. I had supposed 
that the gi'eat principles touching the rights of human nature set forth 
in that immortal instrument were universally acknowledged in this 
country. Judge of my surprise when I heard them assailed, denounced, 
and repudiated, in the Senate of the United States, as self-evident false- 
hoods. Such doctrines grated harshly on my ear. This great Decla- 
ration cost our forefathers too dear thus lightly to be thrown away by 
their children. Was it not to vindicate these great truths, in the face 
of British power, that the fathers of the Republic pledged their lives, 
their fortunes, and their sacred honor 1 Ah, sir, without the influence 
of those soul-inspiring principles it would have been impossible for the 
patriots of that day to have achieved our independence. Such princi- 
ples were, in their estimation, worth the sacrifice of all else on earth, 
even life itself. But it has been left to modern Democracy to discover 
that these principles were all false, and consequently they who fought 
for them either hypocrites or wild enthusiasts — not much better than 
Abolitionists. Indeed, I understand that all who support this bill deny 
the doctrines of the great declaration ; and why should they nof? They 
cannot maintain the principles of the declaration and this bill for the 
extension of Slavery. You cannot serve God and mammon. 

They speak of Slavery as a divine institution. What, then, was 



gamed by the Revolution 1 Was no nevr principle of government estab- 
lished by that great event? Has one man, in fact, really a divine right 
to the soul and body of his neighbor'? Modern Democracy answers in 
the affirmative. I would like to ask the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Pettit] if it is so, that the expression with which the Declaration of 
Independence sets out is " a self-evident falsehood," "and if, on the con- 
trary, men are not created equal ? — that one man may have an inherent 
and inalienable right to govern another, and trample upon his liberty 1 
If it is indeed so, as is chiimed in this debate, I should like to know 
how he is to be known, what mark he wears, how to designate this 
divine governor, this favorite of Heaven, and who is to be the ill-fated 
victim of his despotism. The Senator should not have left us in the 
dark on these important points. Mistakes may thwart the will of 
Heaven, and prove very disasti'ous. 

Mr. PETTIT. Will the Senator allow me for a moment ? I under- 
stand that he points his remarks to me. I said distinctly and emphat- 
ically, in my remarks, and I now repeat, that if Mr. Jefferson had said 
that all men ought to have been created equal, I would have raised no 
dispute, but when he said that they were created equal, I said, that in- 
stead of that being a self-evident truth, it Avas a self-evident lie ; that 
there was no truth in it ; that the negro in Africa and the free-born 
American are not created equal ; that the serf of Russia, under the 
Autocrat, is not the equal of his master, however it may have been in- 
tended or designed. The language in the Declaration will be recol- 
lected : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are cre- 
ated equal." If it had said, I repeat, that they ought to have been 
created equal, I would have made no issue ; but it is utterly false that 
men are, either mentally, morally, ph3'sically, or politically, created 
equal, whatever ought to have been the condition. But blame the Al- 
mighty, not me. He created them. It is not for me to quarrel with 
Him as to the condition in which he created them. I only define the 
condition in which He has placed them upon earth. Ignorant would I 
be, were I to declare that He has placed them here all upon a perfect 
equality, when I see one man born a slave and another a master. 

Mr. WADE. The Senator has mistaken the whole thing, after all. 
[Laughter.] He has chosen to stop short, leaving it, I suppose, to be 
inferred that tlie true interpretation of that great Declaration is this : 
That physical force is the only criterion to decide when one man may 
enslave another. Wliy did he not progress a little further, and learn 
wdiat was said on the subject of rights? They were created equal. 
How ? Not in physical power ; certainly not. Not in point of intel- 
lect ; nobody pretends it. But what follows ? Created equal, and have 
certain inalienable rights. Do you deny that, sir? 

Mr. PETTIT. Yes, sir; I deny it. 

^Ir. WADE. Then you should have denied the whole Declaration 
at once. It was, in truth, denying all there was of it. If they have 
not inalienable rights, if 3'our doctrine is true, then, sir, is the Autocrat 
of Russia in the right, and the Hungarians in the wrong. You, pretend- 
ing to be a Democrat, and contending sometimes for equal rights here, 
are absolutely wrong. Was it left for modern Democracy to discover 
that Jefferson was wrong, and that Nicholas was right ? Was it for 
progressive Democracy to go back to the dark ages to find there the 



true principles of government in the divine right of rulers'? Our 
fathers thought not so, and I think not so, modern Democracy to the 
contrary notwithstanding. I stand upon the good old declaration that 
all men are equal, and have inalienable rights ; that is, equal in point 
of right ; that no man has a right to trample upon another. Not at 
all, sir. The serfs of Russia or the slaves of the Southern States, in 
my doctrine and the doctrine of our fathers, have precisely the same 
rights as he who has trampled them down ; and all there is about their 
present condition is, that some one, either by force or fraud, has wrested 
from the one or the other his rights, which justice demands should be 
restored without delay. Such were the doctrines of the fathers ; and 
the oppressed of every nation will hear with dismay that they are repu- 
diated, denounced, and denied, in the American Senate. But, sir, if 
your construction is right, I ask you again, what principle was estab- 
lished by the American Revolution, of which we are accustomed to 
boast so much — what great principle was established by that great 
event 1 

Mr. PETTIT. I can answer the question very readily. They de- 
clared and asserted the principle that we had the right to be a free and 
independent nation, and to fix our domestic and home institutions as 
we pleased. That, as a nation and as a people, we were free and inde- 
pendent. That is what we asserted, and what we fought for. We 
were free men before ; we did not struggle for that ; but we maintained 
that we were an independent nation, and not dependent upon Great 
Britain. 

Mr. WADE. Again it comes back. The declaration regarded 
personal rights. To be sure, they asserted other rights, because they 
were always consistent with themselves. They not only claimed this 
personal equality before the law, which is included in the inherent 
rights of life, liberty, and happiness ; but they also held that nations, 
in their aggregate capacity, had the right to frame the laws which 
would govern them, which, of course, flowed and followed naturally 
from the other declaration ; and he who undertakes to separate them, 
and to suppose that one of them was declared and the other undeclared, 
leaves us, with all our boasting, a nation of hypocrites ; for wo pro- 
claimed to the world, and it is our constant boast — it is our glory, too — 
that we did discover a new principle in government ; that our forefathers 
sought it out, and that it is our business to impart it to all who come 
after us. If you depart one hair from that, you are back again to the 
old divine right of one person over another. One Senator upon this 
floor has spoken of an institution where there was this divine right. 
The institution of Slavery, one says, is a divine Institution. 

Mr. BUTLER. Will the honorable Senator, who is a frank man, 
allow me to put to him one question, so that if my speech should not go 
out with his, this may be understood ? According to the judgment — the 
legislative, moral, political, deliberate, and unmistakable judgment — of 
the people of Ohio, is a negro equal to a white man in that State? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir, he is, in his right to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. 

Mr. BUTLER. Oh! that does not answer the question. [Laugh- 
ter.] 



Mr. WADE. That he is entirely equal, in all respects, I do not 
contend ; there is wrong done him there, as there is universally— not to 
that degree, however, that there is in other places. That he is sub- 
jected to some wrongs there, and that there is an unwarrantable preju- 
dice against him which restrains him from the full benefit of the great 
principles to which I have alluded, I am not here to deny — not at all. 
He has every other right that 1 have, except the right of holding office, 
and giving a vote. 

Because a man is weak, because he is ignorant, because he is imbe- 
cile, does not confer the right upon the first man who is wiser or 
stronger than lie to subject him to minister entirely to the wishes of 
the stronger man. If you come to that, and that is your rule of action, 
then we have receded to the old idea ; we have not gained anything. 
If pliysical force is the rule, you have the divine right of every king, 
and every emperor, and every monarch, to reign over his subjects, and 
the i-ight"^of the privileged orders everywhere. I know tlie principle is 
almost coeval and coextensive with the world ; but I had supposed that 
we had been singularly privileged in coming out from that old absui'd- 
ity, and making'a declaration that puts us infinitely ahead of every 
other nation. I never heard it denied until I reached the Senate of the 
United States ; and here I find that I was entirely ahead of the times, 
and that we are to go back for our principles of government to the thir- 
teenth century, and find there the divine right of kings reigning in full 
force. 

Mr. PETTIT. Will the Senator allow me a moment ? I will not 
interrupt him again. 

Mr. WADE. Of course. 

Mr. PETTIT. The Senator said that the language of the Decla- 
ration of Independence is, that " we hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all men are created free and equal." That is a total misrecital of 
the Declaration. There is no such word in that connection as "free." 
Mr. Jefferson would himself have known, at first sight, that there was 
no color of truth in it. He, himself a slaveholder, surrounded by slave- 
holders all his life, as far back as he could recollect, and to continue so 
through his life as far as he could imagine, would have seen that upon 
its fa<3e it would be a direct falsehood. The language does not contain 
the word "free." It is precisely this : " We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal." To that I have taken 
issue. 

Mr. WADE. Is not that freel 

Mr. PETTIT. No, sir; not free. He said no such thing. 
Mr. WADE. What is the difference ? 

Mr. PETTIT. Then the clause following is this : '-' That they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." They may 
be endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, as the right to 
breathe the air of Heaven. That may be an unalienable right ; but it 
is not in the strict sense of the word unalienable. _ The language is illy 
chosen, even for that purpose ; for, by your municipal authorities every- 
where, you establish, and recognise, and enforce, the right of even stop- 
ping the breath which the Almighty has infused into the system, so that 
that right itself is alienable; there is no human right that is not 
alienable ; and all men of intelligence will bear me out in saying that 



lie who forms a portion of a body politic, an organized society, or sn 
organized Government, can have no right that is unalienable. 

I repeat, again, I would have no quarrel with any one on the subject, 
if the language had been that all men ought to have been bora or crea- 
ted free and equal; but, as a fact, are they so born 1 The language 
is applied to physics, to mentality, to morals, and to politics ; as much 
to the one as to the other ; and is it true, in cither sense, that men are 
equal? Is your son, who cannot vote until he is twenty-one, equal to 
you, who do vote? Is he your equal when you are training him with 
the rod 1 Is there any equality in the social relation 1 _ Is your wife 
your equal in all rights, political and civil 1 Nothing of it. 
A Senator. She ought to be. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WADE. I think I can bring the question out right, after all, 
according to the gentleman's own construction. He says the language 
is not well expressed ; but if it said they ought to be equal, it would 
be all right. Then, I will inquire, if you find them in an unequal con- 
dition, is it not your duty to make them equal? [Laughter.] That 
will be the way to arrive at it. 

Mr. PETTIT. I must leave that to the Almighty. I cannot do 
that. 

Mr. WADE. It is a hard thing for a man to quarrel on this floor 
with that old Declaration — rather a hard thing. 

Mr. PETTIT. I mean to say what I think, always. 
Mr. WADE. There have been many things said in defence of this 
measure which might easily be answered. I answered some of them 
last night. When I addressed the Senate then, I was somewhat in a 
passion, because I thought my colleague had been treated rather rough- 
ly ; and I admit I was rather out of temper myself. 

Now, I do not intend to go over those points again. I alluded very 
briefly to the arguments that had been urged in defence of this most 
extraordinary measure, and I have barely to say now that here was, 
originally, a compact made between the Northern and Southern States. 
If any man doubts that, let him look to the cotemporaneous history of 
the transaction itself. If he still doubts it, let him take the Presidents' 
Messages, the documents of the Departments, and the laws of Congress, 
and he will find thatf whenever they have alluded to it, they speak of it 
not in the language which they app'ly to any other law upon your stat- 
ute-book, but as a compromise line, and the Missouri Compromise in 
its terms. That it was considered difierent from any common,_ordinary 
species of legislation cannot be denied. It was considered viilid by the 
jurists of our country who sat and adjudicated upon it immediately sub- 
sequent to its passage in Congress. It was sanctioned by the Execu- 
tive Department, when such men as John C. Calhoun, who was so 
jealous of State Rights, were at the head of it. It underwent the 
scrutiny of Mr. Calhoun and his great associates, and they gave it 
their sanction. And you find, up to the time the Nicholson letter was 
written, that every man believed that it was constitutional. Not only 
so, sir, but it has received the constant sanction of every department of 
the Government for more than one third of a century. 

And now, how is it sought to be overthrown 1 Upon what intelli- 
gible principle? Why, sai^d the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] 
in the first place, it was superseded by legislation upon another act alto- 



gcther, not embracing one single foot of tliis land, and made thirty years 
afterAvard?. The proposition was so extraordinary that I believe every- 
body abandoned it. In the next place, it was contradictory, and there- 
fore it should be rendered null and inoperative. If he had said that it 
had no connection with tlie subject whatever, then it would have been 
right, exactly right, because it had no connection with it. In organizing 
the Territory of New Mexico, Congress refers to the Texas resolutions, 
and reaffirms the compromise line in terms, referring to the same law to 
declare that the compromise line in Texas, in this same latitude, shall 
be preserved forever. 

How, then, shall Ave say, sir, that this line has been superseded, or 
that it has been in any way annulled 1 I believe everybody gives tliat 
up. They do not rest upon that, for it is absolutely too absurd for any 
lawyer to stand upon for a moment. I know that is a strong phrase, 
but it is true in every aspect. To maintain, because legislation on one 
subject may be in contradiction with another with which it has no con- 
nection, that it superseded, annulled, or rendered inoperative the other, 
I say again is an absurd proposition, and Senators here dared not stand 
upon that. 

And what do they say next? They say that this Compromise line, 
as established in this old insti-ument, applied to a certain Territory that 
we acquired from France, in terms. Thirty years afterwards we ac- 
quired another large Territory, and we had to make some " needful 
rules and regulations" with regard to that; and now, say the same 
gentlemen who tell us that the Compromise was an unconstitutional 
provision — manifestly so, flagrantly, palpabl}' so — all the Southern 
members came up here in a body in 1850, and with the firm conviction 
of the anconstitutionality of the line, gave it their support, passed it 
through this body with the aid of some few^ Northern votes ; but the 
House would not agree to it, and therefore they say you, the North, re- 
pudiated the line. Is that reasoning any more satisfactory to any mor- 
tal man than the other was ? No, sir ; I deny that it is of any more 
validity than was the other. How possibly could this act affect the 
other, except by way of penalty? And I understand the gentlemen to 
say that, " inasmuch as you refused to carry that line through, we will 
go and deprive you of what we had granted and taken the benefit of 
before." Sir, it is a monstrous proposition. 

But not satisfied with that — for rational men could not rest upon it — 
what say gentlemen next 1 Why, they say, if it was not superseded 
and rendered void in this way, the North was not exactly contented 
with it ; men could be found who had grumbled and been dissatisfied 
Avith that line, and therefore it is null and void. Wo do not by any 
means, say tliey, affirm that we have not had the full benefit of it on 
our part ; but you gave it to us grudgingly, and therefore we will take 
it all back. 

There was one remark of a most extraordinary character made by 
the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton.] He, seeing that he could 
not rest the invalidity of this Compromise upon any of these principles, 
betook himself to another, and that was this : "' My predecessors on 
this floor," he said, ^ who voted for the Compromise, undoubtedly were 
bound by it ; but I was not here, I did not give it my vote, and there- 
fore I am not bound by it." Well, sir, if that is the principle on which 



f 

compromises are to be established, they certainly are of a very frail 
character. Subject your Compromise of 1850, which has been the 
text on which these two great political churches, Democrat and Whig, 
have preached their sermons for four years, to that rule ; is it not open 
to the same objection'? Yet I understand gentlemen still insist on the 
validity of the Compromise of 1850, though I do not really know that 
they do ; for one thing is most noticeable, and that is, that in every 
paper which rung all the changes on the great and glorious Compromise 
of 1850, and never gave it up in a single daily issue, the moment this 
bill came upon the tapis I believe it silenced all their compromise guns, 
and spiked the whole of them. I have not seen or heard the word 
" compromise " named in any of those papers since this bill was con- 
templated, except in reference to the Compromise that is now under 
consideration. 

Now, let me say to gentlemen, you may annul this Compromise if 
you will. You have the physical force to do it ; but can you do it 
rightfully? Is it consistent with the honor of Senators here to do it? 
That is an important question. It is a question that will come back 
again to trouble us at some period. If you do it, it will take away the 
last shred of confidence that can be rested by one section of the LFnion 
in the other. If this Compromise of 1820 shall fail, no man will be so 
entirely destitute of self-respect as ever to offer another, for compro- 
mises must be at an end. But there that Compromise stands upon 
your statute-book ; there it stands upon almost every page of your legis- 
lative history for thirty years and more ; and there it will stand for- 
ever, to mark the depth of Northern degradation, and to measure the 
value of Southern honor. There it will stand ; the world will hold it 
up and look at it, and it will be a kind of political thermometer in all 
after time. And now you will repudiate it ; but I tell you it is dan- 
gerous to shake the confidence of one section of this country in the 
other to the extent you are about to do it. You have shocked the pub- 
lic mind, I believe, both North and South ; you certainly have North. 
You have aroused a spirit that cannot be allayed. No man, unless he 
is wilfully blind, can fail to see that it is so. What do you hear but 
excitement — men gathering together and counselling upon this subject 
in every part and parcel of the free States. It takes a pretty strong 
measure to stir men up to these things ; and this is a strong measure — 
yea, sir, it is a dangerous measure. A friend to this Union, as I claim 
to be — all the aspersions to the contrary, which I do not regard very 
much, conscious myself that I am a lover of the Union — and feeling 
gome little degree of patriotism, I do not like to see a principle fraught 
with danger, as I apprehend this to be, so needlessly brought up for 
the consideration of the Senate ; for if I understand Senators, they say 
that even the South, for whose benefit this thing is supposed to be done, 
have really no interest in it whatever. They say the}' expect nothing 
from it. Well, then, why harrow up those feelings, those hard feelings, 
that must necessarily arise, consequent upon this ? I am not going to 
say here, on the floor of this Senate, that any violent outbreak will take 
place ; but I do know that the public mind is excited silmost to madness 
on this subject. The people apprehend that something is being done 
here to their injury, to their insecurity. 

As the Senator from Tennessee [^Ir. Bell] argued, if there was a 



great and overwhelming necessit}^ for this, I would not raise my voice 
against It, for everything must give way to necessity ; but it does 
not seem that there was any. The worhl was all at peace, so far as we 
were concerned. Our country was never more pre-eminently so when 
this firebrand Avas thrown in here. And by whom was it thrown? 
Senators have talked as though we, on this side, had something to do 
with bringing up the excitement. If you put a man into the fire, and 
hold him there, and he undertakes to get out, is he the aggressor ? Is 
he guilty of excitement because he resists? Who is it that stirs this 
up? Not we. Whatever may come of it, avc, on this side, are clear 
of all its consequences, thank God ! whatever they may be. 

Now, Mr. President, I barely want to read a paragraph or two to 
show how this Missouri Compromise was very recently considered ; for 
I tell you the doctrine of its unconstitutionality is of a most recent 
date. The other side seems to have got it up to accommodate them- 
selves to this particular case. It was not the doctrine of 1850. It 
was not so held by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas.] Unless 
I am greatly mistaken, he has held that this compromise restriction of 
Slavery was valid enough until very lately. In a speech which I find 
in the Congressional Globe, among other things, speaking of Mr. 
Webster, he says 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Wliat is the page? 

Mr. W^ADE. Page 3G5, Appendix to Congressional Globe, vol- 
ume XXII, part 1, first session Thirty-first Conoress, 1849-'50. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. What is the date ? 

Mr. W^ADE. March 13, 1850. The Senator says : 

" In ihe face of this fundamental law, we are told that ' from here to the Western 
boundary of Texas was fixed, pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave territory /or- 
ever, by the solemn guarantees of law !' " 

The quotation is from Webster, I believe. The Senator then pro- 
ceeds : 

" Was there ever such a torturing of language, such a perversion of meaning? 
There is no guarantee, no pledge, no intimation even of ihe liind. The very reverse 
is the fact. While Texas remained an independent Power, it was all slave territory 
from the Gulf of Mexico to the forty-second parallel of latitude. By the resolution 
of annexation, five and a half degrees of this slave territory — to wit: all between thir- 
ty-six and a half and the forty-second parallels — were to become ' pledged, fastened, 
decicided to be ' free, and nol ' slave territory, forever, by the solemn guarantees 
of law.' " 

That is strong language, sir ; totally incompatible with an unconsti- 
tutional restriction : 

" Fixed, pledged, fastened, decided to be free, and not slave territory, forever, 
by the solemn guarantees of law." 

That is not language properly applicable to a void law, an unconsti- 
tutional law. 

" Here is a territory, stretching across five and a half degrees of latitude, with- 
drawn from Slavery and devoted to Freedom." 

Hear this, ye of the South ! Hear what the Senator said in your 
face then, and what he says now : 

"Here is a territory, stretching across five and a half degrees of latitude, with- 
drawn from Slavery and devoted to Freedom by the very act which the Senator 
has chosen to denotjnce aad deride as the work of the Northern Democracy. Nor 
is this all." 



10 

Now, here, I wish attention to this, because it marks one fact com- 
mented upon here in a very different way from \that it was understood 
then. It is remarkable that in all these compromise lines, while they 
fix the destiny of any territory north of 36'' 30', not one fixes abso- 
lutely the territory south of it. They leave that to implication. Wh.at 
was that implication, according to the Senator from Illinois? Hear 
him: 

" Nor is this all. Tliat part of Texas lying south of 30° 30' is not pledged to 
Slavery, as stated by the Senator from Massachusetts." 

No, sir; there were no pledges, express or implied, for the territory 
south of that line. While all north of it was fastened, bound, and 
fixed to Freedom forever, by the just principles of law — not unconsti- 
tutional laAV — the territory south of it Avas not condemned to Slavery. 
Is that the way the Senator argues now ? Where does his new light 
come from? 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator allow me to remind him of a 
facf? I wish, first, to call his attention to the fact that the speech he 
is reading from was a speech made before tlie Compromise measures, 
or any of them, were pending ; before the Territorial measures were 
introduced into the body. It was a speech made on the state of facts 
before the legislation of 1850, and not after that legislation had taken 
place. In tlie second place, I wish to remind him that, when I used 
the strong language of which he speaks, I was quoting Mr. W\'bster's 
words ; and, in the next place, I said it was not pledged in Texas, south 
of 30"^ 30', to Slavery, as said by Mr. Webstek, fur the reason that 
the resolution was, that they should do as they pleased, either have it or 
not. It was pledged neither to Slavery nor to Freedom, but that the peo- 
ple should do as they pleased, according to the principles of this bill. 

Mr. WADE. That is all. There was no implied pledge to slave 
territory. But can this language be less significant if it turned out 
that it did not apply to the peculiar Compromise measures? He was 
still referring to limiting Slavery by a Ihie ; and I do not suppose it 
makes much difference on a constitutional question, whether it was made 
on the 13th of March or any other day. It certainly was upon the 
same subject. It referred to the constitutionality of drawing just such 
a line as this. How, then, could it make any difference Avhether it was 
made on the subject of the Compromise measures or any other 1 The 
thing is impossible. 

Now, sir, I want to have his opinion understood on the subject of the 
Compromise of 1820, the very question under consideration — that time- 
honored Compromise. How did he understand it then 1 Do you sup- 
pose he' thought it all void and of none effect, a thing to be swept away 
like a cobweb ? His language does not show that. In what I shall 
read now, from page 370 j)f the same volume, I believe he speaks in 
reference to what Mr. Calhoun said. His speech is long, and I can- 
not go back to all the connection; but I think I can mak3 it under- 
stood : 

"The next in the series of aggressions coirphiincd of by the Senator from South 
Carolina ia the IMispouri Crnipronaise. The Mi>:f()uri Cooiproniise, an act of Ncrth- 
ern ii jastice, designed to df-prive the South of her due sbaie ■ f the Territi ries." 

I suppose that is wliat Mr. Calhoun had said : 



11 

"Why, sir, it was only on this very day that the Senator frrm MJesiasippt 
despaired of any peaceable adjustment of existing difficultiee, bccauBe the MisBourJ 
Ccmpromise line could not bo extended to the Pacific."' 

He, then, would have the line to the Pacific. Certainly he could not 
come back and say the other party line was unconstitutional. That 
would be a back-handed way of arguing the question, at all events. 

"That measure was originally adopted in the bill for the admi^8ion of Missouri 
by the union of Northern nnd Southern votes. The South has always professed to 
be willing to abide by it, and even to continue it as a fair and honorable adjustment 
of a vexed and difficult question.'"' 

Hear that ! What has invalidated it now? Why is it not of just 
as sound timber as it was four years agol 

"In 1845 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas." 

Repeated again, as I have said. With what face can Senators who 
participated in that now say it is unconstitutional ? 

"In 1845 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas, by South- 
ern as well as Northern votes, without the slightest complaint that it was unfair to 
any section of the country.'' 

That is the way he talked then. 

" In 1846 it received the support of every Southern member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives, Whig and Democrat, without exception, as an alternative measure to 
the Wilmot Proviso. And again, in 1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill on 
my motion, it received the vote, it I recollect aright — and I do not think I can pos- 
eibly be mistaken— of every Southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including 
the Senator from South Carolina himself, [Mr. Calhoun.] And yet we are now 
tr.ld that this is only second to the Oidinance of 1787 m the series of aggressions 
on the South." 

Well, sir, he was right. It was a most extraordinary position for 
Mr. Calhoun to assume at that time, that those measures were ag- 
gressive upon the South ; and most ably did the Senator from Hlinois 
then refute the argument made by the Senator frem South Carolma 
upon that subject, showing conclusively to everybody that he had no 
just right to complain of it. How is it now '? The Senator from Hli- 
nois himself complains, and offers gratuitously, without being asked by 
the South, to repeal the Compromise, and backs it by the argument 
that it is fraught with great injustice to the South. Strange times we 
are fallen into ! I will continue reading from the report of the Sena- 
tor's speech : 

"Mr. BUTLER T think you are mistaken about it. I do not think that my 
colleague [Mr. Calhoun] voted f )r it. 

'• Mr DOUGLAS. I do not think that I can be mistaken upon this point— that 
Mr Calhoun voted for wy motion to insert the Mis-'ouri Coniprtmit^e in the Ore- 
gon bill. He voted for my amendment, and then did not vote at all, or voted 
against the bill on its passage. I cannot be mistaken on the material print, which 
was upon the adoption of my amendment; for, having offered this amendment, 
firbt in the House of Representatives, and subsequently in this body, I waa 
denounced in certain sections as a Slavery-extensionist, a doughface, ai d many 
other kind and pobte terms of similar import were applied to me ; and my name 
was publinhed in certain newspapers with black marks drawn around it, with the 
view of concentrating prpular odium upon me and the party to which it ia my 
pride and pleasure to belong. And now, sir, the very measure which drew all 
these anathemas and denunci'aticns upon my devoted head is now represented by 
the Senator from South Carolina as a measure of deadly hostility to Southern 
interests — a meagure calculated to limit and diminish the area, of Slavery more 



12 

than any act of the Government during its whole history. Be this as it may, I 
think Southern gentlemen should not complain of the measure^ after having given 
it their united vote on several occasions." 

I think the same thing now. I think it most unreasonable that you 
should turn round here, and offer to repeal this old guarantee of Libert}', 
and throw it down, after enjoying all the benefits of it. I adopt the 
argument of the able Senator from Illinois on that subject, and wish he 
would reaffirm it here to-night. 

I shall detain the Senate but a very short time longer. I have been 
pointed at here as an Abolitionist. That is supposed to be a very 
wicked and a very unenviable character, and I do not know but that I 
come under that denomination. I do not like Slavery ; I detest it. 
There are very few whom you can find to resist it more strongly. If 
that makes me an Abolitionist, I cannot help it. But let me say to 
my Northern Democratic friends, who are Jeftersonian Democrats, who 
make their boast on every stump from Maine to Chicago that they are 
of the old Jeffersonian school, that I am of that school also, for, in my 
judgment, no more glorious patriot has ever breathed the breath of life, 
even among the great galaxy of worthies of revolutionary memory. I 
have always admired him. I have endeavored to imitate him ; and now, 
if I have abolitionism about me more than is due, I come very honestly 
by it, for he taught me fully as far as I have ever gone. He taught 
me all about it, as he has taught those Jeffersonian Democrats and Ab- 
olition men here. And now I say to gentlemen, both North and South, 
do not come over the body of that noble old patriot to attack so insig- 
nificant a person as I am on this subject of Abolitionism. Dispose of 
him, the giant of Democracy, first ; and when you have completely 
buried his great and glorious deeds and name, I may be justly and rea- 
sonably exposed to the attack ; but not before. Yes, sir, if anything 
•would reconcile me to the institutions of " Old Virginia," it would be 
that it had produced such men as Jefferson, Wythe, Mason, Tucker, 
and many others. I give her full credit for them. I wish the North- 
ern Democracy was up to the high-water mark of the opinions of tliose 
time-honored patriots. I say again to those who complain of Abolition, 
who complain of me as being Anti-Slavery too much or overmuch, dis- 
pose of this great apostle whom you worship before you attack me. 

I will read from Mr. Jefferson's letter to Dr. Price, the notorious 
English Abolitionist, who was agitating at that time, and who had pub- 
lished a work, and wanted to know of Mr. Jefferson, if I understand 
rightly, what he thought on the subject. And now hear what Mr. 
Jefferson wrote. I want Northern Democrats to understand what 
their old leader and apostle said upon this subject, for he said many 
harder things than I dare to say in the Senate about some of you. 

Mr. I^UTLER. Let us hear it. 

Mr. WADE. He says this : 

" Your favor of July the 2d came duly to hand. The concern you therein express 
as to the effect of your pamphlet in America, induces me to trouble you With some 
observations on that subject." 

That is, this Abolition document, which, if it were carried into the 
South by a Yankee pedlar, wrapped about the goods which he takes to 
the South, you Avould fear him more than au army with banners. 



'■ . 13 

A Senator. That was a great while ago. 

Mr. WADE. Yes in the better days of the Republic. Hear what 
Mr. Jefferson says : 

"From my acquaintance with that country. I think I am able to judge, with some 
degree of certainty, of the manner in which it will be received. South of the Che8- 
speake it will find but few readers concurriDg with it in eentiment on the subject 
cf Slavery." 

The South were nearly as hard-hearted tlien as now. 

"From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will ap- 
prove it in theory, and it will Gnd a respectable minority ready to adopt it in prac- 
tice ; a minority which, for weight and worth of character, preponderates against 
the greater number, who have not the courage to divest their families of a property 
which, however, keeps tlieir consciences unquiet." 

They had consciences then, though that is denied to them now upon 
this floor. 

"Northv'ard of the Chesapeake you may find" — 

Now, I want my Northern Democratic friends to hear this : 

"Northward of the Chesapeake you may find here and there an opponent to your 
doctrine, as you may find here and there a robber and murderer; but in no greater 
number. In that part of America, there being but few slaven, they can easily dis- 
encumber themselvee of them ; and emancipation is put into f-uch a train, that in a 
few years there will be no slaves northward of Maryland. In Maryland 1 do not 
find such a disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in Virginia." 

That is what he called the thing: " This enormity.'''' And in the 
North you find an advocate for Slavery just about as often as you find 
a murderer or a horse-stealer. 

Mr. BUTLER. Those are not Mr. Jefferson's words. 

Mr. WADE. I will read them again : 

" Northward of the Chesapeake you may find here and there an opponent to your 
doctrine, as you may find here and there a robber and murderer ; but in no greater 
number." 

I wish it was so now. 

Mr. BUTLER. Not a horse-stealer. That is a mean fellow. 

Mr. WADE. What do you say of a Northern advocate of Slavery'? 
Then Mr. Jeffer?on comes to old Virginia, and speaks next to the 
young men ; and I wish to Heaven he had been apprehended rightly : 

" Thia is the next State to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spec- 
tacle of justice in cor fliut with avarice and opprotsion ; a conflict wherein the sacred 
side is gaining daily recruits from the ii flux into o£Bce of young men grown and 
growing up. They have sucked in thi» principles of liberty, as it were, with their 
mothers milk ; and it is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this ques- 
tion." 

" It is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this question." 
I wi.sh he had not looked in vain. That was the opinion of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, and it was in accordance with that disinterested patriotism which 
he exhibited all his life. He should be a worthy example for us all to 
follow. I wish that you who profess to follow him would follow him. 
I wish, also, that when you profess to be one of his followers, you would 
not come, right over his great name, and encounter me as you do upon 
this floor for entertaining the same opinions he entertained. 

I have also here what Mr. Mason said upon the subject of Slavery. 



14 

He, too, was a worthy son of the "Old Dorahiion." I quote him to 
show that what I said here on a former occasion was understood to be 
true doctrine by him. I spoke of the inability of free labor to work 
side by side with slave labor. I told you that if you permit Slavery 
to go into this great Territory, you just as perfectly preclude free labor 
from going as though you burnt it over with fire and brimstone, and I 
was censured because that was thought to be a ver}' strong expression ; 
so it was intended to be. Mr. Mason — who lived in a slave State, and 
who had the experience of a whole life, and knew all its goings forth as 
well, probably, as any man here, and from whom it is proper and just 
I should learn what are the relations of this institution, and how it op- 
erates in practice — Mr. Mason said, in the Virginia Convention : 

" The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigra- 
tion of whites who really enrich and strengthen the country. They produce the 
most pernicious effect on the owners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant "j 

I will not say we have seen specimens of them. Recollect, it is Mr. 
Mason says that "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant;" 
and a mighty small one, too, frequently. 

"They bring the Judgment of Heaven on a eountry. As nations cannot be re- 
warded or punished in the next world, they must be pnniched in thig.'" 

That is the way he talked on this great question. Then it is true, 
sir. I have the declaration of the great and honored man who knew it 
well, that it is impossible for free and slave labor to work side by side. 
Then, if 3'ou put slaves in this Territory, you bar it from the immigra- 
tion of your free laborers. 

But it is said, by gentlemen from the South, that it would be the 
greatest injustice and inequality to have any territory belonging to the 
United States where they cannot go with their property. A greater 
sophistry never entered into this argument, and a more erroneous prin- 
ciple than that on which it constantly turns never was expressed by any 
sophist on earth. You cannot go tlicrc ! It is unequal and unjust, 
because you cannot take your property with you ! Who docs not know 
that property in human beings can never be but of a local character 1 
It is unjust ; it is in violation of right everywhere ; and wherever it 
exists, it exists by force of stubborn, positive law. I am not repeating 
any Anti-Slavery doctrine here. There is not a court south of Mason 
and Dixon's line which will not declare that if you, a slaveholder, will 
take the slave, which you call your property, into another country, for 
^a, moment, where Slavery does not exist, you emancipate him. 

I want to dispose of your ai'gument, and to show that it is not con- 
sidered property. The law of nations never would recognise it. Take 
that which the Almighty in the garden of Eden said might be prop- 
erty — all the beasts in the field — and you will be protected in them ; 
but in any man, woman, or child, you cannot. Take any other species 
of property, and it would be strange doctrine, if j'ou went out of the 
jurisdiction where you reside, with a horse for instance, if you were not 
to be protected in it. Then your slave is not property ; and the mo- 
ment you choose to carry him out of that locality where he is guarantied 
by unjust laws, that moment you arc adjudged to emancipate him, not 
by an Abolition judge sitting in a court, but liy the justices of 3-our 
own independent courts ; and I give them the credit of steridy judging 



15 

rightly on this subject, so far as I can see. I would ratlier trust you 
with the liberty of a man a thousand time?, if on your principles he was 
entitled to it, "than our degraded courts, for they give way too much to 
court your favor. No, sir ; your own judges are a thousand times 
more independent, and just, and prompt, to decide between the Aveak 
and the strong, so far as I can see, from reading your books. I will 
give you that compliment. 

Mr. BUTLER. There is one thing; if the slaves run away, they 
like us so much that they are glad to come back. 

Mr. WADE. Yes, tliey love you so much that you have had to get 
a Fugitive Slave Law to catch them to get them back. [Laughter.] 
There was one argum(>nt made by the Senator from North Carolina, 
[Mr. Badger,] Avhich struck me as exceedingly singular. He is a very 
eloquent man, and set forth all the beauties of this patriarchal institu- 
tion, as he calls it, to show the affectionate relation existing between 
him and his old slaves, with whom he grew up frofa boyhood, with 
whom he was intimate and familiar, and whom he pronounced to be the 
best friends he had upon the earth. He said : ^' Do you want to make 
us hard-hearted 1 Now, sir, if I can better my condition, and the con- 
dition of my slaves, by going into Nebraska, where the soil is better, 
and where we will have a better supply of all the good things of this 
earth, in the name of God, do you want to atand forth and prevent 
me? " The Senator also spoke in the most touching manner of his old 
"mammy," who had Tmrsed him in infancy, and the hardship of being 
compelled to part with her and his other friends. A hard case, to be 
sure, Mr. President ! Who could be so cruel as to wish to prevent 
the Senator from taking along with him into th.at goodly land his old 
friends, and especially his dear old "ma/?i??iy?" No one, certainly, 
will be found so unreasonable and hard-hearced. "Why, then, let me 
ask, can he not take them along? How do ive prevent him'? Why, 
merely because we will not let him sell his old friends, and his dear old 
"mammy," when he gets there. A hard case, certainly, Mr. Presi- 
dent ! [Roars of laughter.] Such, Mr. President, is the morbid con-,J 
dition of the Southern mind upon this subject, that I do not suppose 
they would locate in the Kingdom of Heaven, with the Jefferson Proviso 
to prevent their buying and selling the servants of God. 

One thinj^ more, and I have done. It is said that tliis bill is to 
establish the great principles of self-government and non-intervention. 
How utterly preposterous. Why, Mr. President, this bill fixes unal- 
terably the whole frame-work of the Government of those Territories 
forevei'. It provides who may vote, when they may vote, and where 
they shall vote. It deprives the people of any voice in the election of 
the" most important officers. The people are to have nothing to do in 
electing their Governor, who is nevertheless to have a veto on all their 
proceedings. Nor are they to participate in the appointment of the 
Judges, on whose decisions life, property, and all that is dear to any 
people, depends. No, sir ; these people are to be deprived by this bill 
of every attribute of a free and independent people. And this is what 
the Democracy call establishing the great princii»le of self-government! 
Sir, it is endeavoring to establish a Great Humbug! and I think the 
device too shallow to accomplish the object. The truth is, that the 
bill does not intend to invest the people with power over only one sub- 




16 

ject, and that is to provide whether SI LlBR2,^^jOj|;jjjj|52^ 

those Territories ; a power of all others -v\ """"" 

subject on which it is more dangerous to i 

lature than with any other power. For, : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

dent will, as everybody knows, appoint r lllW>«™""ggY ggl 4 # \ 
slaveholding Judges. And what chance wi .^ uuve under influ- 

ences like these ? Besides, it must be confessed that the great Demo- 
cratic Party, both North and South, in these latter days, have just 
about as great proclivity to enslave each other as the inhabitants of the 
Fejee Islands have for eating each other, and equally require to be 
placed under some wholesome restraint upon this their besetting sin. 

But enough of this. Mr. President, the only object of repealing the 
Missouri Compromise is to extend Slavery into these great Territories. 
No sophistry can conceal it, and no verbiage can cover it up. To 
effect it, private honor is to be forfeited and public faith violated. I 
have, on a former occasion, said that I do not believe the Union can 
survive this great iniquity ten years, if it can half that period. The 
Northern mind, although slow to anger, and too indifferent to wrong, is 
at length moved as it has not been moved since the Stamp Act of Rev- 
olutionary times. Let us not deceive ourselves with the idea that this 
excitement is to be but temporary. It is born of Southern ambition 
and Southern aggression^ in view of which the Northern mind is begin- 
ning to doubt whether Slavery and Freedom are not Avholly incompatible 
and hopelessly irreconcilable in the same Government. I say to Sen- 
ators, if you persevere in this wrong, and treat with contempt this 
uprising of the people, they will soon rise in their might, and sternly 
demand, not only the repeal of this law, but all others Avhich have for 
their object the upholding of Slavery. Threats of disunion and seces- 
sion will no longer avail. That time is past. The people already 
begin to feel that if the vast powers of the Federal Government are to 
be Avielded for the sole purpose of trampling the rights of human nature 
under foot, and for the institution of Slavery, instead of the glorious 
objects for which those powers were bestowed, the sooner disunion 
comes the better. But, Mr. President, let us hope ft)r better things. 
A vast and beautiful region, with untold millions of inhabitants in all 
future time, is in our hands, and AW^^re responsible for their welfare 
and happiness. And may God prosper the right. 

Now, Mr. President, I have occupied the time of the Senate longer 
than I intended to when I commenced ; but it seemed to me that the 
argument had taken such a course, and such doctrines had been urged 
in defence of this bill, that somebody ought to rise and_ perform the 
very disagreeable task of endeavoring to expose the sophistry of some 
of them. I have endeavored to do it, and I will trouble the Senate no 
longer. 

BuKhL <St Blanchard, Printers. Washington, D. C. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



iiiiiilliiiiini'ii 



011 897 861 4 



